IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 33 of 2006()
1. SONIA JOHN (MINOR) D/O. JOHN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.M. PAULOSE, SINI TOURIST HOME,
... Respondent
2. MYTHEEN M.A., S/O. M.M. ALIYAR,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :27/06/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 33 OF 2006
---------------------
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, in OP(MV) 589/03.
The claimant, a minor girl aged 9 years, sustained injuries in a motor
vehicle accident and the Tribunal had awarded a compensation of
Rs. 23,500/-. It is against that decision, the appellant has come up in
appeal.
2. The Tribunal held that the claimant has not examined by
a Medical Board. But nevertheless it granted Rs.6,750/- towards
disability. Whether it is adequate is the only question that has to be
looked into. It is clear from the documents available that there was no
visual disability. But it is noted by the Doctor that a slight ptosis was
noted in the left eye, which according to him may be from the RTA. It
also held that there has been a post traumatic headache as certified
by the doctor of the Medical Mission Hospital. This ptosis is an
abnormal condition of one or both upper eyelids in which the eyelid
droops because of a congenital or acquired weakness of the levator
muscle or paralysis of the third cranial nerve. Similarly, a post
MACA No.33/06 2
traumatic headache, that too on a young girl aged 9 years, can be on
account of the injuries sustained in the accident. It can be seen that
the girl had a black eye left which is indicative of an injury on the front
side of the head. Further, it has to be held that being a young girl
she would have been prevented from attending her normal activities
and also could have been deprived of her normal enjoyment. It is
true that disability certificate is not produced. But the evidence
available shows the presence of a traumatic headache as well as
ptosis. Therefore taking into consideration those aspects, I feel the
total compensation awarded to the claimant should have been
Rs.30,000/- for which only an amount of Rs.23,500/- is granted.
Therefore, I enhance the compensation by Rs.6,500/-.
In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is
entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.6,500/- with 7 % interest
on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation from the
respondents. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the
amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
MACA No.33/06 3